For thirty years, a federal court built specifically to expel dangerous noncitizens sat completely unused.
That changed last week, when the Alien Terrorist Removal Court issued its very first order, sending an Afghan woman back to Kabul over her alleged role in a foiled Election Day attack.
Officials confirmed Friday that Nazira Haji Zada, 47, formerly of Fort Worth, Texas, had already been deported to Afghanistan under a sealed ruling dated Aug. 20. Zada, 47, consented to her own removal and, strictly for the purposes of the case, accepted the government’s classification of her as an “alien terrorist.”
Congress birthed the tribunal through the 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, designing it as a workaround for a specific problem: how does the government deport accused terrorists without spilling classified secrets in a public courtroom?
Five district judges, drawn from five different circuits and appointed by the chief justice, staff the bench.
The panel operates unlike any standard immigration court. Judges there may review classified evidence under protective procedures shielding national-security intelligence from public disclosure.
Critics, including Zada’s own attorneys and several civil-liberties organizations, argue this setup leaves defendants unable to fully see or contest the case against them.
Notably, prosecutors never filed criminal charges against Zada over the alleged Election Day conspiracy.
She held lawful permanent resident status when the government targeted her for removal instead.
On July 15, the Justice Department petitioned the specialized court, alleging she had supported family members allegedly organizing an ISIS-inspired shooting.
Federal agents took Zada into custody weeks later, in late July, and she was brought before Chief Judge Joan Ericksen in a Washington courtroom to answer the removal petition.
By the time Zada’s case reached the tribunal, the broader plot had already produced hard convictions.
Authorities arrested her son, Abdullah Haji Zada, and her son-in-law, Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, on Oct. 7, 2024, catching them in the act of purchasing AK-47-style rifles, ammunition, and magazines from an undercover FBI operative.
Prosecutors say the two men were building toward a mass-casualty shooting timed for on or around Nov. 5, 2024 — Election Day.
Court filings reveal that Tawhedi had been messaging an ISIS facilitator during the planning stages, even weighing aloud whether 500 rounds would get the job done.
Tawhedi eventually admitted to plotting with at least one co-conspirator from June through October 2024, working to secure firearms for an ISIS-backed assault.
He entered a guilty plea in June 2025 on charges of conspiring and attempting to provide material support to ISIS, plus firearms violations tied to a federal terrorism statute.
Sentencing has not yet occurred.
Abdullah, just 17 years old at the time of his arrest, nonetheless pleaded guilty as an adult defendant. A federal judge handed him a 15-year prison term.
His plea agreement locks in an eventual return to Afghanistan following his release and strips away nearly every option he might have had to fight that removal on appeal.
While the terror case unfolded, the White House press operation experienced its own shakeup.
Attorney General Todd Blanche took the podium in the Rose Garden on Wednesday, filling in as the administration continues its hunt for a successor to former Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt.
Reporters pressed Blanche on the department’s plans regarding classified files linked to the September 11 attacks.
He indicated more documents concerning alleged Saudi connections would soon become public, insisting sensitive material would stay protected only where genuinely warranted.
“The one thing that we are not doing, we’re not protecting people,” Blanche told the assembled press corps.
Fraud enforcement dominated much of Blanche’s remaining time at the microphone.
Just two days earlier, he had joined Vice President JD Vance in Missouri to unveil charges against alleged fraudsters accused of draining millions from COVID-era small-business relief programs.
Blanche framed both appearances as evidence of a Justice Department leaning harder into fraud and public-corruption cases.
Taken together, the terror court’s historic first ruling and the department’s fraud offensive point to an agency moving on multiple fronts simultaneously this month.
